fbpx
  • Latest News
  • Trending News
  • All
  • Latest News
  • Featured
  • Industry News
  • Legal Governance
  • Constitutional Law
  • Op-Ed
  • News Archives
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Analysis
  • Bankruptcy Law
  • Consumer Protection Law
  • Cyber Security Law
  • Family Law
  • Disability Law
  • Employment Law
  • Environmental Law
  • Estate Law
  • Housing Law
  • Human Rights Code
  • Immigration Law
  • Insurance Law
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Privacy Law
  • Tax Law
  • Workers Compensation Board
Liberty vs. Equality: Defining the Limits of Free Expression in Ward v Quebec

Liberty vs. Equality: Defining the Limits of Free Expression in Ward v Quebec

March 18, 2022
More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

August 13, 2022
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

August 12, 2022
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

August 12, 2022
FBI took 11 sets of classified material from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home while investigating possible Espionage Act violations (US)

FBI took 11 sets of classified material from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home while investigating possible Espionage Act violations (US)

August 12, 2022
Ontario class action settlement reclassifies volunteers as employees, setting new precedent

Ontario class action settlement reclassifies volunteers as employees, setting new precedent

August 11, 2022
Availability of Judicial Review in SABS Disputes

Availability of Judicial Review in SABS Disputes

August 10, 2022
Are masking policies still valid?

Are masking policies still valid?

August 10, 2022
Justice Canada releases commission report on impact of lack of legal aid in family law disputes

Justice Canada releases commission report on impact of lack of legal aid in family law disputes

August 9, 2022
Harmonized sales tax part of maximum amount of attendant care benefits owed by insurer: court

Harmonized sales tax part of maximum amount of attendant care benefits owed by insurer: court

August 8, 2022
New rules coming next month to help Canadians with cancelled and delayed flights

New rules coming next month to help Canadians with cancelled and delayed flights

August 3, 2022
Stephen King set to testify for govt in books merger trial (US)

Stephen King set to testify for govt in books merger trial (US)

August 2, 2022
New law program in Quebec to begin next fall, a first in 50 years

New law program in Quebec to begin next fall, a first in 50 years

August 2, 2022

Defence lawyers threaten job action over Legal Aid Alberta funding

August 1, 2022
The Impact of the Lack of Legal Aid in Family Law Cases

The Impact of the Lack of Legal Aid in Family Law Cases

July 29, 2022
SCC rules that when someone is required by their partner to wear a condom but do not, they could be guilty of sexual assault.

SCC rules that when someone is required by their partner to wear a condom but do not, they could be guilty of sexual assault.

July 29, 2022
Big Plastic suing feds over single-use ban — again

Big Plastic suing feds over single-use ban — again

July 29, 2022
Tim Hortons offers coffee and doughnut as proposed settlement in class action lawsuit

Tim Hortons offers coffee and doughnut as proposed settlement in class action lawsuit

July 29, 2022

NBA investigating Philadelphia 76ers for possible tampering

July 29, 2022

#MeToo didn’t end sexual harassment in the workplace and vigilance remains a must

July 29, 2022
The SCC has refused to hear the appeal to declare the renewal of the state of health emergency by the Quebec government invalid

The SCC has refused to hear the appeal to declare the renewal of the state of health emergency by the Quebec government invalid

July 28, 2022
Federal privacy commissioner investigating controversial ArriveCAN app

Federal privacy commissioner investigating controversial ArriveCAN app

July 28, 2022
Kraken, a U.S. Crypto Exchange, Is Suspected of Violating Sanctions (US)

Kraken, a U.S. Crypto Exchange, Is Suspected of Violating Sanctions (US)

July 26, 2022
Ontario court certifies class action on former patients’ anxiety from notice of risk of infection

Ontario court certifies class action on former patients’ anxiety from notice of risk of infection

July 26, 2022
The stakes couldn’t be higher as Canada’s top court decides whether to hear climate class action lawsuit

The stakes couldn’t be higher as Canada’s top court decides whether to hear climate class action lawsuit

July 26, 2022
Professor Barnali Choudhury selected by EU as trade and sustainable development expert

Professor Barnali Choudhury selected by EU as trade and sustainable development expert

July 25, 2022

Abuse and harassment survivors ‘silenced’ by non-disclosure agreements fight for change to B.C. law

July 23, 2022
The Supreme Court decision on the ‘Ghomeshi’ amendments will help sexual assault victims access justice

The Supreme Court decision on the ‘Ghomeshi’ amendments will help sexual assault victims access justice

July 5, 2022
AFN Reaches $20 B Final Settlement Agreement to Compensate First Nations Children and Families

AFN Reaches $20 B Final Settlement Agreement to Compensate First Nations Children and Families

July 4, 2022

Why your options may be limited if your employer wants you back in the workplace

July 4, 2022

City directs contractors to reinstate Sikh security guards who lost work due to clean-shaven rule

July 4, 2022
  • ABOUT LITN
  • SUPPORT LITN
  • LEGAL, PRIVACY & POLICY
  • PUBLIC EDUCATION & RESOURCE LINKS
Thursday, February 9, 2023
  • Login
  • Register for a FREE LITN account
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
  • Latest News
  • Industry News
  • Categories
    • A to C
      • Aboriginal Law
      • Access to Justice (A2J)
      • Administrative Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Analysis
      • Animal Law
      • Anti-Corruption Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Arbitration Law
      • Banking and Securities Law
      • Bankruptcy Law
      • Cannibis Law
      • Civil Litigation
      • Class Action
      • Commercial Law
      • Constitutional Law
      • Construction Law
      • Consumer Protection Law
      • Contract Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber Security Law
    • D to H
      • Disability Law
      • Editor’s Choice
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Entertainment Law
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Highway Traffic Law
      • Housing Law
      • Human Rights Code
    • I to L
      • Immigration Law
      • Industry News
      • Insurance Law
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • International Law
      • Labour Law
      • Latest News
      • Legal Governance
    • M to Z
      • Medical Law
      • Municipal Law
      • Op-Ed
      • Personal Injury Law
      • Privacy Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Regulatory Law
      • Tax Law
      • Telecommunications Law
      • Transportation Law
      • Workers Compensation Board
  • Archives
    • 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
    • 2021
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
  • About LITN
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • Our Mission
    • Our Goal
    • Contact Us
    • Support LITN
      • Contribute to LITN Operations
      • Place YOUR Custom Ad on LITN
      • Engage with LITN Sponsored Ads
      • Create a FREE LITN Account
      • Subscribe to the LITN Newsletter
      • Connect, Follow, Like, Retweet and Repost LITN
    • Legal, Privacy and Policy
      • Cookie Policy (CA)
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
  • Public Education and Resource Links
No Result
View All Result
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
  • Latest News
  • Industry News
  • Categories
    • A to C
      • Aboriginal Law
      • Access to Justice (A2J)
      • Administrative Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Analysis
      • Animal Law
      • Anti-Corruption Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Arbitration Law
      • Banking and Securities Law
      • Bankruptcy Law
      • Cannibis Law
      • Civil Litigation
      • Class Action
      • Commercial Law
      • Constitutional Law
      • Construction Law
      • Consumer Protection Law
      • Contract Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber Security Law
    • D to H
      • Disability Law
      • Editor’s Choice
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Entertainment Law
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Highway Traffic Law
      • Housing Law
      • Human Rights Code
    • I to L
      • Immigration Law
      • Industry News
      • Insurance Law
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • International Law
      • Labour Law
      • Latest News
      • Legal Governance
    • M to Z
      • Medical Law
      • Municipal Law
      • Op-Ed
      • Personal Injury Law
      • Privacy Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Regulatory Law
      • Tax Law
      • Telecommunications Law
      • Transportation Law
      • Workers Compensation Board
  • Archives
    • 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
    • 2021
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
  • About LITN
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • Our Mission
    • Our Goal
    • Contact Us
    • Support LITN
      • Contribute to LITN Operations
      • Place YOUR Custom Ad on LITN
      • Engage with LITN Sponsored Ads
      • Create a FREE LITN Account
      • Subscribe to the LITN Newsletter
      • Connect, Follow, Like, Retweet and Repost LITN
    • Legal, Privacy and Policy
      • Cookie Policy (CA)
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
  • Public Education and Resource Links
No Result
View All Result
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
No Result
View All Result
Home Constitutional Law

Liberty vs. Equality: Defining the Limits of Free Expression in Ward v Quebec

This case arose after Mike Ward, a professional comedian, mocked Jeremy Gabriel, a boy with a disability, in a stand-up comedy routine.

March 18, 2022
Reading Time: 11 mins read
0
A A
0
Liberty vs. Equality: Defining the Limits of Free Expression in Ward v Quebec
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare by Email

 


PHOTO: Stock
  • David Côté ⁞ U of T Faculty of Law Review
  • March 18, 2022

 
 

(2L, Volume 80)

Facts & Objective

In October of 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a 5-4 decision in Ward v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse), 2021 SCC 43 (CanLII) (Ward). This case arose after Mike Ward, a professional comedian, mocked Jeremy Gabriel, a boy with a disability, in a stand-up comedy routine. 

Gabriel filed a complaint with the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, a government agency. This agency, in turn, argued that Ward infringed Gabriel’s full and equal recognition of his right to the safeguard of his dignity, contrary to ss. 4 and 10 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR c C-12 (Quebec Charter). Ward raised a defence based on freedom of expression, protected by s. 3 of the Quebec Charter. 

The Supreme Court’s five-judge majority framed the issue in terms of how to approach a discrimination claim in a context involving freedom of expression. However, this post argues that the true divergence between the majority and dissent is rooted in two related factors: (1) fundamentally different perspectives on how and when freedom of expression should be limited in a free and democratic society, and (2) an inability to reconcile liberty and equality (i.e., an inability to accommodate unfettered expression while preventing harm to others). 

As will be explored below, the majority relied on Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 (CanLII) (Whatcott) to propose a liberty-oriented holding and frame their analysis in terms of  the benefits of freedom of expression to society. Alternatively, the dissent drew on the s. 15 jurisprudence to propose an equality-oriented solution and focus their analysis on the harms of freedom of expression at the individual level. This difference leads the majority and dissent to advocate for relatively broad and narrow interpretations of freedom of expression, respectively. Understanding these opposing views provides insight into how the Supreme Court is currently thinking about freedom of expression, a Charter right with a history of interpretation that is pulled back and forth between liberty and equality.

Background on the Quebec Charter & Relevant Case Law

Gabriel’s discrimination claim against Ward was based in s. 10 of the Quebec Charter. Prior to Ward, the framework for a discrimination claim under s. 10 was set out in Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), 2015 SCC 39 (CanLII) (Bombardier). This claim requires establishing three elements: (1) a distinction, (2) based on a prohibited ground (“handicap” is a prohibited ground under s. 10), and (3) that nullifies or impairs the equal recognition and exercise of a separate Quebec Charter right. To establish this third element, Gabriel argued that Ward nullified and impaired his s. 4 right “to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation” (Ward at para 16). If these three factors are established, the burden of justifying the discrimination falls on the defendant. Ward’s defence relied on s. 3, which protects one’s fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression. 

Before Ward, Calego International inc. c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, 2013 QCCA 924 (CanLII) (Calego) was the authority over discrimination claims in the context of freedom of expression. Calego established that speech would violate the s. 10 guarantee of equality in the exercise of one’s s. 4 right if “it constitutes such a contemptuous affront to the individual’s identity that it would have serious consequences for the reasonable person in that individual’s circumstances. The reasonable person would be aware of the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society, and would therefore be expected to tolerate hurtful speech, even related to protected grounds, that does not rise to a high level of gravity” (Ward at para 163). The Calego standard is a modified objective test, whereby it must account for the plaintiff’s characteristics and the context in which the remarks were made.

Analysis of Majority: Liberty & the Benefits of Speech to Society 

Writing for the majority, Wagner CJ and Côté J, joined by Moldaver, Brown and Rowe JJ, rejected Gabriel’s claim at the second step of the Bombardier test and reasoned that the discrimination was not made on a prohibited ground. The majority explained that the Tribunal made a finding of fact that Gabriel was chosen by Ward because he was a public figure, not due to his disability.  Although the judgment could have ended here, they carried on at length to explain that even if there had been differential treatment based on a prohibited ground, Gabriel’s claim would have failed. 

Prior to conducting their analysis, the majority opined on freedom of expression and framed it as a positive force to society that must only be limited in unique and extraordinary circumstances. The majority explained that freedom of expression flows from the concept of human dignity and that this dignity would be meaningless if some people were silenced because of their opinions (paras 53, 59). They went on to say that the purpose of protecting freedom of expression under the Quebec Charter was to “ensure that everyone can manifest their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, indeed all expressions of the heart and mind, however unpopular, distasteful or contrary to the mainstream” (para 59). Stemming from this idea, and reiterated throughout the judgment, is the principle from Whatcott that freedom of expression cannot be limited to confer protection from emotional harm; the benefits of freedom of expression at large outweigh the offence to an individual. 

The majority further relied on Whatcott to propose only two situations where limits on freedom of expression are justified: 

“…where, in a given context, there are serious reasons to fear harm that is sufficiently specific and cannot be prevented by the discernment and critical judgment of the audience…  [and] where it is used to disseminate expression that, even if it does not fully meet the definition of hatred set out in Whatcott, nonetheless forcers certain persons ‘to argue for their basic humanity or social standing, as a precondition to participating in the deliberative aspects of our democracy’” (Whatcott at paras 129–35 and 75, quoted in Ward at paras 61 and 63) 

Wagner CJ and Côté J further argued that freedom of expression does not begin until it gives rise to a duty to tolerate what other people say (para 60). Essentially, the majority presented the classical liberal view of freedom of expression that society is best off with a marketplace of ideas, no matter how repugnant or repulsive.

In their analysis, the majority made two distinct analytical moves that were seemingly shaped by their perception of freedom of expression. First, they slightly modified the third element of the Bombardier test. Now, to establish a discrimination claim, the plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities: (1) a distinction, exclusion or preference, (2) based on a prohibited ground, (3) “that has the effect of nullifying or impairing the equal recognition or exercise of a right whose protection is called for in light of s. 9.1 in the context in which it is invoked” (para 44).

Section 9.1 states, “In exercising his fundamental freedoms and rights, a person shall maintain a proper regard for democratic values, State laicity, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Québec. In this respect, the scope of the freedoms and rights, and limits to their exercise, may be fixed by law.” The majority’s adjustment to the third element of the test enabled them to look beyond the discrimination at-hand and instead to “democratic values” and “the general well-being of the citizens of Québec.” In other words, it introduces a balancing exercise that enables a court to weigh the harmful effects of discrimination against the benefits of freedom of expression to society.

Second, the majority rejected the Calego test and introduced a novel two-step framework to analyze the third element of discrimination in the context of a conflict between the right to the safeguard of dignity and freedom of expression. Calego included a step whereby the court considered the perception of a reasonable person targeted by the same words. The majority argued that this approach “results in a shift toward protecting a right not to be offended, which has no place in a democratic society” (para 82). It further explained that “the applicable test must not be focused either on the repugnant or offensive nature of the expression or on the emotional harm caused to the person. Otherwise, it would amount to censoring expression because of its content or its impact on a person, regardless of its discriminatory effects” (para 82). Rather, the analysis must be focused on the likely discriminatory effects of the expression, not on the emotional harm suffered by the person alleging discrimination. 

Analysis of Dissent: Equality & the Harms of Speech on Individuals

Written by Abella and Kasirer JJ. and joined by Martin and Karakatsanis JJ., the dissent opened by clearly distinguishing themselves from the majority. They framed the issue entirely differently, which provides insight into their perspective on freedom of expression: “whether the child with disabilities lost protection from discrimination and the right to be free from public humiliation and bullying just because he is well known” (para 115). They explained that there is no basis for tolerating words that have humiliating or dehumanizing effects on children with disabilities, and immediately established that emotional harm can, and indeed should, be a limit on freedom of expression (para 116). Further, the dissent rejected the majority’s reliance on Whatcott and denounced them for seemingly making hate speech the threshold at which discriminatory comments can be actionable. 

The dissent applied the standards as set out in Bombardier and Calego, and argued that Ward’s speech satisfied both tests. They found a distinction based on Gabriel’s disability that impaired his s. 4 right. And, a reasonable child in Gabriel’s circumstances would have suffered significant harm due to Ward’s speech. 

Moreover, they specifically indicated that the Bombardier analysis is based on the impact on the complainant, not the intention of the defendant (para 134). Their approach is shaped by the idea of substantive equality from the s. 15 jurisprudence and relies on Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 12 (CanLII) and Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 2 (SCC). They argued that “there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals” so, to avoid such inequity, “the main consideration” for courts hearing discrimination claims should be “the impact . . . on the individual . . . concerned” (para 149). 

As such, there will be a distinction based on a prohibited ground whenever a claimant “carries a burden that others do not, by reason of [an enumerated] personal characteristic” (para 149). As a result, it did not matter whether Ward targeted Gabriel based on his disability or his fame. For the dissent, it is all about impact, and Gabriel was impacted differently by Ward’s jokes due to his disability.

Liberty vs. Equality: An Eternal and Continuing Debate at the Supreme Court of Canada  

Freedom of expression is a slippery, elusive right. Deeply rooted in philosophy, the bounds of freedom of expression are constantly developing. This fact becomes readily apparent from a cursory review of the section 2(b) jurisprudence. 

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code in a case involving anti-Semitism (R v. Keegstra, 1990 CanLII 24 (SCC) (Keegstra)). Yet, two years later, the Supreme Court struck down the criminalization of spreading false news in R v. Zundel, 1992 CanLII 75 (SCC) – a case involving Holocaust denial. Moving to 1998, the court upheld the constitutionality of the Criminal Code offence of defamatory libel in R v. Lucas, 1998 CanLII 815 (SCC), after a man publicly accused a police officer of child sexual abuse. While, in R v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), the Supreme Court created an exception allowing for self-created, privately held materials pertaining to child pornography. And, most recently in Whatcott, a case challenging the constitutionality of Saskatchewan’s anti-hate human rights legislation, the Supreme Court revisited and substantially narrowed the scope of their ruling in Keegstra.

Indeed, there are nuances and distinguishing facts between these cases. However, to say the least, the trajectory of section 2(b) of the Charter is more prone to change than other areas of law because it represents a battleground between two values that are fundamental to Canadian democracy: liberty and equality. Tracing this history to the present day begs the question: where does the current bench stand on the limits of freedom of expression? 

Ward provides insight into this inquiry. The court is clearly split. Wagner CJ, and Côté, Moldaver, Brown and Rowe JJ seem to focus their analyses on how limiting freedom of expression will impact society-at-large. They are clearly committed to a society underpinned by a marketplace of ideas, where tolerating offensive speech is integral to a functioning democracy. As a result, they seemingly only support limits to freedom of expression if the impugned expression has harm effects on society, such as the perpetuation of discrimination or hate. Alternatively, Abella, Kasirer, Martin and Karakatsanis JJ seemed to be more concerned about the impacts of freedom of expression on individuals. They are motivated by equality rights, and ensuring that all Canadians can pursue a dignified life.  

At the broadest level, this case is about a clash between liberty and equality. However, neither decision directly acknowledges that these values might be in conflict, and that there may be a necessary trade-off between the two. Philosophers have struggled with this question for centuries. The basic premise of the debate stipulates that (a) ensuring liberty requires that people have the freedom to conduct themselves differently from one another, which will necessarily produce unequal outcomes, and (b) ensuring equality requires limiting people’s liberty such that everyone obtains equal outcomes or receives equal treatment. Some liberty, therefore, must be surrendered to obtain more equality, and vice versa. As a result, in a conflict between liberty and equality, the analysis must necessarily be a balancing exercise. Evidently, the majority and dissent differ on where the weight should be placed. These perspectives will undoubtedly prove influential when s. 2(b) of the Charter returns to the SCC. 

GOOGLE ADVERTISEMENT

 


PHOTO: Stock
  • David Côté ⁞ U of T Faculty of Law Review
  • March 18, 2022

 
 

(2L, Volume 80)

Facts & Objective

In October of 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a 5-4 decision in Ward v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse), 2021 SCC 43 (CanLII) (Ward). This case arose after Mike Ward, a professional comedian, mocked Jeremy Gabriel, a boy with a disability, in a stand-up comedy routine. 

Gabriel filed a complaint with the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, a government agency. This agency, in turn, argued that Ward infringed Gabriel’s full and equal recognition of his right to the safeguard of his dignity, contrary to ss. 4 and 10 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR c C-12 (Quebec Charter). Ward raised a defence based on freedom of expression, protected by s. 3 of the Quebec Charter. 

The Supreme Court’s five-judge majority framed the issue in terms of how to approach a discrimination claim in a context involving freedom of expression. However, this post argues that the true divergence between the majority and dissent is rooted in two related factors: (1) fundamentally different perspectives on how and when freedom of expression should be limited in a free and democratic society, and (2) an inability to reconcile liberty and equality (i.e., an inability to accommodate unfettered expression while preventing harm to others). 

As will be explored below, the majority relied on Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 (CanLII) (Whatcott) to propose a liberty-oriented holding and frame their analysis in terms of  the benefits of freedom of expression to society. Alternatively, the dissent drew on the s. 15 jurisprudence to propose an equality-oriented solution and focus their analysis on the harms of freedom of expression at the individual level. This difference leads the majority and dissent to advocate for relatively broad and narrow interpretations of freedom of expression, respectively. Understanding these opposing views provides insight into how the Supreme Court is currently thinking about freedom of expression, a Charter right with a history of interpretation that is pulled back and forth between liberty and equality.

Background on the Quebec Charter & Relevant Case Law

Gabriel’s discrimination claim against Ward was based in s. 10 of the Quebec Charter. Prior to Ward, the framework for a discrimination claim under s. 10 was set out in Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), 2015 SCC 39 (CanLII) (Bombardier). This claim requires establishing three elements: (1) a distinction, (2) based on a prohibited ground (“handicap” is a prohibited ground under s. 10), and (3) that nullifies or impairs the equal recognition and exercise of a separate Quebec Charter right. To establish this third element, Gabriel argued that Ward nullified and impaired his s. 4 right “to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation” (Ward at para 16). If these three factors are established, the burden of justifying the discrimination falls on the defendant. Ward’s defence relied on s. 3, which protects one’s fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression. 

Before Ward, Calego International inc. c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, 2013 QCCA 924 (CanLII) (Calego) was the authority over discrimination claims in the context of freedom of expression. Calego established that speech would violate the s. 10 guarantee of equality in the exercise of one’s s. 4 right if “it constitutes such a contemptuous affront to the individual’s identity that it would have serious consequences for the reasonable person in that individual’s circumstances. The reasonable person would be aware of the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society, and would therefore be expected to tolerate hurtful speech, even related to protected grounds, that does not rise to a high level of gravity” (Ward at para 163). The Calego standard is a modified objective test, whereby it must account for the plaintiff’s characteristics and the context in which the remarks were made.

Analysis of Majority: Liberty & the Benefits of Speech to Society 

Writing for the majority, Wagner CJ and Côté J, joined by Moldaver, Brown and Rowe JJ, rejected Gabriel’s claim at the second step of the Bombardier test and reasoned that the discrimination was not made on a prohibited ground. The majority explained that the Tribunal made a finding of fact that Gabriel was chosen by Ward because he was a public figure, not due to his disability.  Although the judgment could have ended here, they carried on at length to explain that even if there had been differential treatment based on a prohibited ground, Gabriel’s claim would have failed. 

Prior to conducting their analysis, the majority opined on freedom of expression and framed it as a positive force to society that must only be limited in unique and extraordinary circumstances. The majority explained that freedom of expression flows from the concept of human dignity and that this dignity would be meaningless if some people were silenced because of their opinions (paras 53, 59). They went on to say that the purpose of protecting freedom of expression under the Quebec Charter was to “ensure that everyone can manifest their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, indeed all expressions of the heart and mind, however unpopular, distasteful or contrary to the mainstream” (para 59). Stemming from this idea, and reiterated throughout the judgment, is the principle from Whatcott that freedom of expression cannot be limited to confer protection from emotional harm; the benefits of freedom of expression at large outweigh the offence to an individual. 

The majority further relied on Whatcott to propose only two situations where limits on freedom of expression are justified: 

“…where, in a given context, there are serious reasons to fear harm that is sufficiently specific and cannot be prevented by the discernment and critical judgment of the audience…  [and] where it is used to disseminate expression that, even if it does not fully meet the definition of hatred set out in Whatcott, nonetheless forcers certain persons ‘to argue for their basic humanity or social standing, as a precondition to participating in the deliberative aspects of our democracy’” (Whatcott at paras 129–35 and 75, quoted in Ward at paras 61 and 63) 

Wagner CJ and Côté J further argued that freedom of expression does not begin until it gives rise to a duty to tolerate what other people say (para 60). Essentially, the majority presented the classical liberal view of freedom of expression that society is best off with a marketplace of ideas, no matter how repugnant or repulsive.

In their analysis, the majority made two distinct analytical moves that were seemingly shaped by their perception of freedom of expression. First, they slightly modified the third element of the Bombardier test. Now, to establish a discrimination claim, the plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities: (1) a distinction, exclusion or preference, (2) based on a prohibited ground, (3) “that has the effect of nullifying or impairing the equal recognition or exercise of a right whose protection is called for in light of s. 9.1 in the context in which it is invoked” (para 44).

Section 9.1 states, “In exercising his fundamental freedoms and rights, a person shall maintain a proper regard for democratic values, State laicity, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Québec. In this respect, the scope of the freedoms and rights, and limits to their exercise, may be fixed by law.” The majority’s adjustment to the third element of the test enabled them to look beyond the discrimination at-hand and instead to “democratic values” and “the general well-being of the citizens of Québec.” In other words, it introduces a balancing exercise that enables a court to weigh the harmful effects of discrimination against the benefits of freedom of expression to society.

Second, the majority rejected the Calego test and introduced a novel two-step framework to analyze the third element of discrimination in the context of a conflict between the right to the safeguard of dignity and freedom of expression. Calego included a step whereby the court considered the perception of a reasonable person targeted by the same words. The majority argued that this approach “results in a shift toward protecting a right not to be offended, which has no place in a democratic society” (para 82). It further explained that “the applicable test must not be focused either on the repugnant or offensive nature of the expression or on the emotional harm caused to the person. Otherwise, it would amount to censoring expression because of its content or its impact on a person, regardless of its discriminatory effects” (para 82). Rather, the analysis must be focused on the likely discriminatory effects of the expression, not on the emotional harm suffered by the person alleging discrimination. 

Analysis of Dissent: Equality & the Harms of Speech on Individuals

Written by Abella and Kasirer JJ. and joined by Martin and Karakatsanis JJ., the dissent opened by clearly distinguishing themselves from the majority. They framed the issue entirely differently, which provides insight into their perspective on freedom of expression: “whether the child with disabilities lost protection from discrimination and the right to be free from public humiliation and bullying just because he is well known” (para 115). They explained that there is no basis for tolerating words that have humiliating or dehumanizing effects on children with disabilities, and immediately established that emotional harm can, and indeed should, be a limit on freedom of expression (para 116). Further, the dissent rejected the majority’s reliance on Whatcott and denounced them for seemingly making hate speech the threshold at which discriminatory comments can be actionable. 

The dissent applied the standards as set out in Bombardier and Calego, and argued that Ward’s speech satisfied both tests. They found a distinction based on Gabriel’s disability that impaired his s. 4 right. And, a reasonable child in Gabriel’s circumstances would have suffered significant harm due to Ward’s speech. 

Moreover, they specifically indicated that the Bombardier analysis is based on the impact on the complainant, not the intention of the defendant (para 134). Their approach is shaped by the idea of substantive equality from the s. 15 jurisprudence and relies on Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 12 (CanLII) and Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 2 (SCC). They argued that “there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals” so, to avoid such inequity, “the main consideration” for courts hearing discrimination claims should be “the impact . . . on the individual . . . concerned” (para 149). 

As such, there will be a distinction based on a prohibited ground whenever a claimant “carries a burden that others do not, by reason of [an enumerated] personal characteristic” (para 149). As a result, it did not matter whether Ward targeted Gabriel based on his disability or his fame. For the dissent, it is all about impact, and Gabriel was impacted differently by Ward’s jokes due to his disability.

Liberty vs. Equality: An Eternal and Continuing Debate at the Supreme Court of Canada  

Freedom of expression is a slippery, elusive right. Deeply rooted in philosophy, the bounds of freedom of expression are constantly developing. This fact becomes readily apparent from a cursory review of the section 2(b) jurisprudence. 

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code in a case involving anti-Semitism (R v. Keegstra, 1990 CanLII 24 (SCC) (Keegstra)). Yet, two years later, the Supreme Court struck down the criminalization of spreading false news in R v. Zundel, 1992 CanLII 75 (SCC) – a case involving Holocaust denial. Moving to 1998, the court upheld the constitutionality of the Criminal Code offence of defamatory libel in R v. Lucas, 1998 CanLII 815 (SCC), after a man publicly accused a police officer of child sexual abuse. While, in R v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), the Supreme Court created an exception allowing for self-created, privately held materials pertaining to child pornography. And, most recently in Whatcott, a case challenging the constitutionality of Saskatchewan’s anti-hate human rights legislation, the Supreme Court revisited and substantially narrowed the scope of their ruling in Keegstra.

Indeed, there are nuances and distinguishing facts between these cases. However, to say the least, the trajectory of section 2(b) of the Charter is more prone to change than other areas of law because it represents a battleground between two values that are fundamental to Canadian democracy: liberty and equality. Tracing this history to the present day begs the question: where does the current bench stand on the limits of freedom of expression? 

Ward provides insight into this inquiry. The court is clearly split. Wagner CJ, and Côté, Moldaver, Brown and Rowe JJ seem to focus their analyses on how limiting freedom of expression will impact society-at-large. They are clearly committed to a society underpinned by a marketplace of ideas, where tolerating offensive speech is integral to a functioning democracy. As a result, they seemingly only support limits to freedom of expression if the impugned expression has harm effects on society, such as the perpetuation of discrimination or hate. Alternatively, Abella, Kasirer, Martin and Karakatsanis JJ seemed to be more concerned about the impacts of freedom of expression on individuals. They are motivated by equality rights, and ensuring that all Canadians can pursue a dignified life.  

At the broadest level, this case is about a clash between liberty and equality. However, neither decision directly acknowledges that these values might be in conflict, and that there may be a necessary trade-off between the two. Philosophers have struggled with this question for centuries. The basic premise of the debate stipulates that (a) ensuring liberty requires that people have the freedom to conduct themselves differently from one another, which will necessarily produce unequal outcomes, and (b) ensuring equality requires limiting people’s liberty such that everyone obtains equal outcomes or receives equal treatment. Some liberty, therefore, must be surrendered to obtain more equality, and vice versa. As a result, in a conflict between liberty and equality, the analysis must necessarily be a balancing exercise. Evidently, the majority and dissent differ on where the weight should be placed. These perspectives will undoubtedly prove influential when s. 2(b) of the Charter returns to the SCC. 

Want direct access to the latest LITN content?

Stay in the loop ➞ Subscribe to LITN instant notifications.
Receive the latest content delivered directly to your device.
Unsubscribe at anytime.

Unsubscribe from LITN instant notifications
Previous Post

FSRA’s intent to simplify OCF Forms doesn’t go far enough: Thomson Rogers’ Darcy Merkur

Next Post

Former Saskatoon mayoral candidate launches defamation suit against Law Society

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to LITN's Terms & Conditions.

Latest News

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report
Medical Law

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

August 13, 2022
7
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined
Constitutional Law

Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

August 12, 2022
7
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence
Disability Law

The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

August 12, 2022
7

Subscribe

Join the LITN Newsletter ➞ the latest news delivered to your inbox. Unsubscribe at any time.


GOOGLE ADVERTISEMENT

Instagram Feed

  • How #MoonMining could work ... https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/the-lunar-gold-rush-how-moon-mining-could-work ...
#spacelaw #spacelawyers #spaceeconomy #spacematters
  • 📜 Facts #FutureOfWork #RemoteWork #connectivity #wellbeing #working ... https://lawinthenews.com/
  • #LegalTechWoes #legaltech #legaltechpainpoints #legalinnovation  #legalops #legaloperations #legal
#legalgeek #legaltechs #legaltechnology | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews
Courtesy Mat Jakubowski ...silvertownlegal.com | @matjakubowski ... https://www.linkedin.com/in/mat-jakubowski | https://lawinthenews.com/

Facebook Feed

Facebook Feed

Twitter Feed

Join the Conversation

Personal selections from a Canadian perspective. #Law in the #News #LITN @Law_In_The_News

News Categories

Latest Headlines

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

August 13, 2022
7
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

August 12, 2022
7
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

August 12, 2022
7

Subscribe to the LITN Newsletter

Join the LITN Newsletter ➞ the latest news delivered to your inbox. Unsubscribe at any time.

Website Powered By

DJT Design Studios logo

© 2022 Law in the News Media (LITN)

  • About LITN
  • Contact LITN
  • Support LITN
  • Legal, Privacy and Policy
  • Public Education & Resource Links
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Sign Up
  • Latest News
  • Industry News
  • Categories
    • A to C
      • Aboriginal Law
      • Access to Justice (A2J)
      • Administrative Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Analysis
      • Animal Law
      • Arbitration Law
      • Anti-Corruption Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Banking and Securities Law
      • Bankruptcy Law
      • Cannibis Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Civil Litigation
      • Class Action
      • Commercial Law
      • Constitutional Law
      • Construction Law
      • Consumer Protection Law
      • Contract Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber Security Law
    • D to H
      • Disability Law
      • Editor’s Choice
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Highway Traffic Law
      • Housing Law
      • Human Rights Code
    • I to L
      • Immigration Law
      • Industry News
      • Insurance Law
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • International Law
      • Labour Law
      • Latest News
      • Legal Governance
    • M to Z
      • Medical Law
      • Municipal Law
      • Op-Ed
      • Personal Injury Law
      • Privacy Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Regulatory Law
      • Tax Law
      • Telecommunications Law
      • Transportation Law
      • Workers Compensation Board
  • News Archives
    • 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
    • 2021
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
  • Public Education & Resource Links
  • About LITN
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • Our Mission
    • Our Goal
    • Contact LITN
    • Support LITN
    • Legal, Privacy and Policy
      • Home
      • Cookie Policy
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms of Use Policy

© 2022 Law in the News Media (LITN)

Welcome Back to LITN!

Sign In with Facebook
Sign In with Google
Sign In with Linked In
OR

Login to your LITN account below.

Forgot your password? Sign Up

Create a FREE LITN Account!

Sign Up with Facebook
Sign Up with Google
Sign Up with Linked In
OR

Please complete your registration below.

*By registering into the website, you agree to LITN's Terms & Conditions.
All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
Manage Cookie Consent
LITN uses technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information to provide the best user experience. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
Go to mobile version